8K TVs are here now (well, apparently 2 models so far and probably not yet in the shops - never mind there are no 8K channels yet!), only some 20-odd years after the film industry started using 8K monitors.

Hence, it won't be too long until we see 8K monitors appearing. But what is the bloody point? You'd have to be using at least a 40" screen to be able to use it, and that is an awfully big screen for ordinary day-to-day computing. Also, in computing terms, it will only make sense if the operating system operates its interface/display at much higher DPI than at present - something in the order of 300-600 DPI at least. Otherwise, you just have a large image of low resolution.

Also, a 40-odd inch display is, for the ordinary, typical computer user, a massively large one that is difficult to take all in at a reasonable distance. Move it further away than a smaller one and you might as well save your money and stick with a smaller display in the first place. Sure, it's great for people who are into serious GFX and photographic work, or CAD/CAM, and programmers and others who need a vast amount of data windows open at the same time. But for ordinary users? What, to watch some sh**ty movie on their computer? Go and watch on your far-too-large-already (for the average living room) TV!

So, are you saving up your pennies for an 8K monitor yet, Jorge? (I know it would make sense for you, as it would have for me when I was still working.)

Not only did I just get a 4K monitor for more screen real estate when programming, as I enjoy gaming as much as anyone else.

Only the newest 2xxx generation of nVidia graphics cards can basically guarantee 60 FPS on Ultra Settings at 4K (the 1080ti came close, but still no cigar).

So, not only isn't even the latest generation of graphic cards anywhere near powerful enough to handle gaming at 8K, as to be able to use a 4K monitor at 100% DPI (and thus enjoy all that screen real estate so useful to development) I had to wait for 43" 4K monitors to make an appearance.

30" 4K monitors are just too small for text to be readable at 100% DPI, at setting them at a higher DPI negates the purpose of a 4K monitor, at least for me.

Having a 43" monitor just inches away from your face is already stretching the limits of what is comfortable and practical (if you ever get one of this size, I STRONGLY recommend opting for a curved one, assuming those will be eventually available - your neck will thank me later). Now imagine how large an 8K monitor would have to be to run it at 100% DPI.

8K monitors are just a gimmick at this point, if you ask me. Not even sure if they will ever actually BE a thing, unless you start hanging gigantic 8K monitors on the wall instead of having them on your desk.

Not only did I just get a 4K monitor for more screen real estate when programming, as I enjoy gaming as much as anyone else.

LOL! This anyone else doesn't. Enjoy games, that is. In fact, I hate them. Although, if I could sit at the AMD and Win 7 long enough, I could be tempted into playing the odd Mahjong Solitaire. Which oddly enough is exactly the same that I first saw on OS/2 Warp (4, I think), though it started life somewhere else IIRC, and later it also appeared on BeOS.

winstep wrote:

Only the newest 2xxx generation of nVidia graphics cards can basically guarantee 60 FPS on Ultra Settings at 4K (the 1080ti came close, but still no cigar).

So, not only isn't even the latest generation of graphic cards anywhere near powerful enough to handle gaming at 8K, as to be able to use a 4K monitor at 100% DPI (and thus enjoy all that screen real estate so useful to development) I had to wait for 43" 4K monitors to make an appearance.

30" 4K monitors are just too small for text to be readable at 100% DPI, at setting them at a higher DPI negates the purpose of a 4K monitor, at least for me.

Yeah, I can see that. OTOH, for GFX related etc., the higher the DPI the better. (In GFX terms, esp. in re: photography and related stuff as well as CAD, we're stuck with a bloody low DPI from the OS at present, which makes it difficult to be certain of the final quality of the image, given that that is usually at 300 DPI and sometimes higher.)

winstep wrote:

Having a 43" monitor just inches away from your face is already stretching the limits of what is comfortable and practical (if you ever get one of this size, I STRONGLY recommend opting for a curved one, assuming those will be eventually available - your neck will thank me later). Now imagine how large an 8K monitor would have to be to run it at 100% DPI.

Yes, you'd be talking at least 80"-odd, or even 100"+, in your terms. Mind you, the film industry used to use 28-32" 8K (CRT!) monitors when those first became available way back, IIRC only made by JVC and Sony.

An 80" and more monitor would have to be at least 6 feet from my face, and even then.... Hell, I usually have to be about 1 1/2 - 2' from both the laptop screen and the 22" CRT (I love that fat old beast!). If I ever manage to get a 40"+ monitor, I'd actually have it on the wall at about 4' or so. Yes, a curved one would make sense, if they ever become available. OTOH, that presents its own problems for GFX etc. So far, curved TVs are selling very poorly here (not sure about world-wide), which makes me doubt we'll see curved monitors.

winstep wrote:

8K monitors are just a gimmick at this point, if you ask me. Not even sure if they will ever actually BE a thing, unless you start hanging gigantic 8K monitors on the wall instead of having them on your desk.

Couldn't agree more Jorge, and I think they'll always remain a gimmick for average users. See them coming along eventually we almost certainly will though, along with matching GPUs. Then again, maybe not. Industry (such as film, high end GFX/photography etc.) already have them, so the market might just be too limited.

I actually think curved monitors make a lot more sense than curved TVs. Monitors are generally for one person's viewing, whereas TVs are usually to be watched by multiple people and in various parts of the room, and curving them narrows the best viewing point to one spot.

I actually think curved monitors make a lot more sense than curved TVs. Monitors are generally for one person's viewing, whereas TVs are usually to be watched by multiple people and in various parts of the room, and curving them narrows the best viewing point to one spot.

I think for TVs curved makes no sense at all. Even with an 80-something in. TV and sitting in the "ideal spot" and right distance (which in any case is generally impossible in the average domestic living room), the curvature introduces distortion, particularly with typical TV programmes. (Many movies, made for very large, wide and curved screens use a special lens to compensate for this curvature. However, this is usually reversed for domestic consumption as very few people have curved TVs so far. But it's not generally very noticeable and most people wouldn't know distortion if it bit them on the nose.)

For monitors, curved is a different matter - very useful for anything from ~38" up. But even here you do of course get some degree of distortion off-centre as displays are based on a flat screen, but it is of course perfectly workable. (The very reason why with CRT monitors you have to fiddle around with the monitor controls to get rid of the barrel and/or pincushion distortion, as even the flattest, late CRT are curved, though outwards.)

For monitors, curved is a different matter - very useful for anything from ~38" up. But even here you do of course get some degree of distortion off-centre as displays are based on a flat screen, but it is of course perfectly workable.

Yeah, I forgot to mention that curved monitors are great for extremely large screen sizes UNLESS you are a graphics designer or something like that, because the curvature will distort straight lines, etc...

They must create a need, to keep on coming up with more and more powerful GPUs.

If I was still running my old 2560x1600 monitor as my primary monitor instead of the new 43" 4K, my GTX 980ti would have been more than enough for years to come.

Thing is, this is getting stupid. You can't run 8K at 100% DPI unless it's a HUGE monitor, which makes it impractical to place on a desk in front of you. So, you need to increase screen DPI, which (at least to me) completely negates the advantage of 8K (screen real estate).

To give you an idea, 30" was the ideal size for a 2560x1600 screen resolution at 100% DPI. For 4K, I needed a 43" monitor, and THAT is already TOO BIG because it forces me to shift my position to clearly see the horizontal edges of the screen, and move my neck to look up and down. Now imagine something even bigger than that sitting right in front of your nose.

The 8K that I saw was only 32 or 38in.! I must say, in GFX/vid/cine and CAD it would be extremely useful, even with a 38in. Here, the emphasis would not be on screen estate but on resolution alone, and you'd be using a larger monitor wall- or stand mounted (but at eye level) at an appropriate distance.

OTOH, high end GFX etc. have had them for yonks, and even 16K for some time as well as - in cine/cgi - 32K for blockbusters shot in 70 mil. I rather suspect this whole thing is more games and VR driven than anything, and of course, let's do things just because we can. :/

Your LG 4K btw has coome down a hell of a lot in price here - seen it for just over £400! (And as TV for even less.)

Your LG 4K btw has coome down a hell of a lot in price here - seen it for just over £400! (And as TV for even less.)

Affordable 4K monitors is always a good thing. Pity it doesn't really support Freesync (LG says it does, but the range is so narrow that they might as well say it doesn't lol) now that nVidia is making all their GPUs support that open standard as well...

End of last year, run up to Xmas, Harrods in London, had one of the 8k TV's running a demo,it looked amazing, but with a price tag of over £15k, silly money, and you would still see the normal rubbish, but a darn sight clearer and sharper!

End of last year, run up to Xmas, Harrods in London, had one of the 8k TV's running a demo,it looked amazing, but with a price tag of over £15k, silly money, and you would still see the normal rubbish, but a darn sight clearer and sharper!

Phew! That's just nuts! Especially when even 4K TV is still a long way from established. It seems all BBC channels except BBC1 have now gone 1080HD only, and all channels on cable are now available in 1080, but on cable there's so far only Virgin's own 4K channel and I think some of the Sky channels. So, the scope for 8K will be very limited for some while yet... Waste of bandwidth anyway for TV. In the typical domestic context, even a 40+in. TV is unfeasibly too large already, and really you need at least that to get the benefit of 4K. So for 8K, you're talking about a medium-sized multiplex cinema sized screen. To put where? In your opposite neighbour's garden shed?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum